Hogan v. Mohlenbrok

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 RU HOGAN, No. 2:24-cv-03566-JAM-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE 14 CITY OF ROCKLIN, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, [15] Defendants. [16] 17 Before the Court is City of Rocklin’s (“Defendant”) motion 18 to strike three causes of action in Ru Hogan’s (“Plaintiff”) 19 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See Mot., ECF No. 12. 20 Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition to Defendant’s 21 motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the Court construes 22 Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as a non-opposition to the motion. 23 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. 24 California Code of Civil Procedure provides, “A cause of 25 action against a person arising from any act of that person in 26 furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech 27 under the United States Constitution or the California 28 Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject 1 to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that 2 the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that 3 the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 4 § 425.16(b)(1). The protected conduct includes: “(1) any written 5 or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, 6 executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official 7 proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement 8 or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration 9 or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any 10 other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or 11 oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a 12 public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or 13 (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the 14 constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of 15 free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of 16 public interest.” Id. 425.16(e). “A defendant need only make a 17 prima facie showing that plaintiff’s claims arise from the 18 defendant’s constitutionally protected free speech or petition 19 rights.” Optional Cap., Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss, Hauer & Feld 20 LLP, 18 Cal. App. 5th 95, 112 (2017). The California Supreme 21 Court held, “If the defendant makes the required showing, the 22 burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the 23 claim by establishing a probability of success. We have 24 described this second step as a ‘summary-judgment-like 25 procedure.’” Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal. 5th 376, 384 (2016). 26 Here, Plaintiff’s allegations center around Defendant’s 27 involvement in the enforcement of zoning code as it relates to 28 her hens. To enforce the code, Defendant allegedly issued 1 citations, processed Plaintiff’s requested accommodation, ordered 2 Plaintiff to remove her hens, Defendant employee David Mohlenbrok 3 communicated with third parties, and Officer Heather Rodgers 4 testified at a hearing. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 5 ¶¶ 4, 8-9, 12, 14, ECF No. 9. Defendant has demonstrated that 6 this conduct is protected free speech under California Code of 7 Civil Procedure. See Mot. at 12-13. Accordingly, Defendant has 8 made “a prima facie showing” that Plaintiff’s claims arise from 9 Defendant’s constitutionally protected free speech rights. See 10 Optional Cap., Inc., 18 Cal. App. 5th at 112 . 11 Because Defendant has made “the required showing, the burden 12 shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the merit of the claim by 13 establishing a probability of success.” Baral, 1 Cal. 5th at 14 384. As an initial matter, because Plaintiff has not opposed the 15 motion, she cannot meet her burden of demonstrating a probability 16 of success. Although the Court need go no further before 17 granting the motion, its review of the specific claims reveal 18 that Plaintiff does not have a probability of success. As 19 Defendant explains, Defendant is immune from tort liability and 20 thus the First and Fourth Causes of Action fail. See Mot. at 1421 16. Regarding Plaintiff’s claim for violation of California’s 22 Fair Employment and Housing Act, Defendant demonstrates that 23 Plaintiff cannot prevail because she was granted the 24 accommodation she requested. See Mot. at 16-17. Thus, even if 25 Plaintiff opposed the motion, the Court finds that she would be 26 unable to meet her burden. 27 /// 28 /// ee enn nee EE OIE EO 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and STRIKES 2 the First, Second, and Fourth Causes of Action in the FAC. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: March 4, 2025 JM fey JOHN A. MENDEZ 7 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE